Snobbery in the Lounge?

[Dr Doran]

As best we can given the day, our mood, our circumstances, their mood, their circumstances ... proximity helps us avoid some misjudgments but certainly not all. We're subjective beings and how we perceive others and ourselves is also subjective and influenced by myriad variables. The sin is not in bringing our own perception to the table, but in believing that perception can ever be anything but subjective. Wherever possible we have to make allowances for that. I'm not perfect - my perception of some members' answers in a thread yesterday was that they were being snotty. Their perception was that they were being honest. So whose perception defines reality?



Perhaps, but that premise rests on the assumption that we ever reveal our 'true selves' either in person or via other means. I think it could be argued, e.g., that what we wear and the things we buy can be as much mask as window into who we are. I'm not sure I even understand why it's necessary for us to know another person's true self - half of us don't know our own true selves. And again, perception cannot be excised. Perception is reality in most cases.




Because we're human. Because Eve sought knowledge and ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and talked Adam into taking a bite, too. Whether a thing can be figured out or not shouldn't keep us from trying. The journey, not the destination, KWIM?

My only problem with this is that if someone takes this too much to heart, he can excuse himself from trying to be as objective as possible by saying, "well, that's MY perception." Also, confusing perception with reality: I don't think that's right either. We must constantly try to detangle them to see, as clearly as possible, what is actually going on. We must try to rise above our prejudices, biases, and ideologies. This is what (hopefully) happens in a courtroom with all the cross-examining. Our society needs it. Any society does.

 

[The Dame]

My only problem with this is that if someone takes this too much to heart, he can excuse himself from trying to be as objective as possible by saying, "well, that's MY perception."

And, clearly, many already do. You can't force someone to be objective, that's all I'm saying, and you can't eradicate subjectivity or pretend it's not there when it is.

Also, confusing perception with reality: I don't think that's right either. We must constantly try to detangle them to see, as clearly as possible, what is actually going on. We must try to rise above our prejudices, biases, and ideologies. This is what (hopefully) happens in a courtroom with all the cross-examining. Our society needs it. Any society does.

We'll have to agree to disagree since I don't think I'm 'confusing' perception with reality at all - I'm saying, individually speaking, our perception is our reality. I'm propounding that there is no objective reality as such because each and every one of us brings our own perceptions to the table. However, I am not saying that we shouldn't try to rise above our prejudices, biases, ideologies, etc. But it is in my opinion fallacious to assert we can ever achieve a truly objective reality. And knowing that ought to help us guard against relying too heavily on any one person's perception of an event (if we're talking a court of law or some other similar circumstance where some semblance of objectivity is at least the desired goal, if not always the desired outcome).

 

[Dr Doran]

But it is in my opinion fallacious to assert we can ever achieve a truly objective reality. And knowing that ought to help us guard against relying too heavily on any one person's perception of an event (if we're talking a court of law or some other similar circumstance where some semblance of objectivity is at least the desired goal, if not always the desired outcome).

We may not be able to assert it, but we move closer toward it the more photographs we examine, the more recordings we hear, the more film loops we scrutinize, the more witnesses we question. If this was not possible, then there would be no point to doing historical research.

 

[Foofoogal]

For some reason I hear my mama saying: Sandy, Don't encourage them for pete's sakes.

This thread is starting to hurt my brain and I am beginning for sure to think we are all snobs as the speech in general is going into the ozone.

The funny thing is I would tend to believe people just took people at face value. Can you even imagine vintage people even having this conversation at all?
Everything (and most everyone) knew its place and there was a place for everything. IMHO of course.

 

[Dr Doran]

For some reason I hear my mama saying: Sandy, Don't encourage them for pete's sakes.

This thread is starting to hurt my brain and I am beginning for sure to think we are all snobs as the speech in general is going into the ozone.

The funny thing is I would tend to believe people just took people at face value. Can you even imagine vintage people even having this conversation at all?
Everything (and most everyone) knew its place and there was a place for everything. IMHO of course.

Tons of people had all kinds of conversations in the 1930s and 1940s! Plenty of books describing just about every conversation and thought you can imagine. Plenty of academics too.

 

[jamespowers]

Tons of people had all kinds of conversations in the 1930s and 1940s! Plenty of books describing just about every conversation and thought you can imagine. Plenty of academics too.

Of course. There were the long hairs and the pointy headed throughout time.

 

[The Dame]

We may not be able to assert it, but we move closer toward it the more photographs we examine, the more recordings we hear, the more film loops we scrutinize, the more witnesses we question. If this was not possible, then there would be no point to doing historical research.

Yes, but all of that objective material/information passes through a subjective filter - our brains. And we are products of many things. Give you an example: I was once in a poetry workshop and wrote a poem that dealt with fallout from nuclear testing. Another workshop participant, many years my senior, who'd lived through WWII, commented on the difference in perspective/perception between her generation and mine. Whereas I saw it as a carcinogenic pathogen physically, morally, politically and environmentally, she and others of her generation saw the atom bomb as a Godsend - something that was going to save countless lives because the Japanese wouldn't have stopped otherwise. History and historical documents are constantly reassessed. Not even history is objective. Especially since it was the victor who got to write history, not the vanquished.

 

[surely]

These last two pages have been excellent. :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[surely]

Of course. There were the long hairs and the pointy headed throughout time.

Now don't forget the lowbrows, they may be offended.:rage:

 

[jamespowers]

Now don't forget the lowbrows, they may be offended.:rage:

I already mentioned the filthy hippies.

 

[The Dame]

Tons of people had all kinds of conversations in the 1930s and 1940s! Plenty of books describing just about every conversation and thought you can imagine. Plenty of academics too.

Atlas Shrugged, anyone?

 

[Feraud]

Now we are really off topic.

 

[surely]

I already mentioned the filthy hippies.

What about the clean hippy, there were plenty of them.

 

[surely]

Now we are really off topic.

I agree. But first I must have my power nap.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Now we are really off topic.

Wait...this was a topic?

 

[Story]

Wait...this was a topic?

32...

 

[jamespowers]

What about the clean hippy, there were plenty of them.

Sure. Riiiiiiiggghht.

 

[The Dame]

Discussions are organic and evolve. Snobbery led to perception, perception to reality, objectivity vs. subjectivity. It's all good. Plus lots of non sequiturs.

 

[Dr Doran]

Especially since it was the victor who got to write history, not the vanquished.

This is untrue. Thucydides, the father of scientific history, wrote the history of the Peloponnesian War. He was an Athenian. The Athenians lost that war. Polybios was an Achaean. The Romans took over Achaea and took him captive. Yet he wrote a history of the Roman military involvement in Greece. Which Greece lost.

As for value questions such as the moral poison of atomic bombs, these are not facts. They are up for interpretations. Of course subjective views are important. However, the physical poisonousness of atomic bomb fallout is not a subjective issue but a factual one.

Here are more objective facts. The earth goes around the sun. The moon goes around the earth. No subjective impressions bear the slightest amount of importance in these facts. They are objectively true. They constitute part of the (huge) body of objective truth that exists for us to discover.

 

[jamespowers]

Plus lots of non sequiturs.

Those are the best parts of this thread. I am too good to pay attention to the rest of the eggheadedness.